I personally would never ever own a Japanese car, and would admonish anyone claiming that their Toyotas are American cars simply because they are made here (Or rather assembled here from parts made overseas). When you buy Jap the profits go to Japan.

Furthermore, I think the reports of American cars being inferior are borne from liberal bias against American cars in the major automotive magazines (Example: Pontiac's Aztec was called "ugly" (Which it is), but Toyota's Scion Toaster-box thingy is "modern"? Tell me that's not bias; that is probably the ugliest vehicle ever made since the AMC Pacer!).

Personally, I would hate to see either Ford or GM go under just for the simple fact that Japanese cars are the most boring cars on the road. Consider this; a Cadillac that is 10 years old is still considered "classy", one that is 20+ years old is considered a classic. A Lexus that is even 5 years old looks like any other ordinary car, and most have been scrapped by 20 years.

If you don't like American cars, at least consider European cars such as BMW's or Audi's.

Location: FLYING DOWN THE INTERSTATE IN MY CHEVY VAN (SEE IT IN MY AVATAR?), WINDOWS DOWN, 80'S HAIR METAL BOOMING ON THE RADIO, AND ME SPENDING ALL MY CASH ON GAS!

Posts: 18,080

Re: Which auto maker will go bankrupt first?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaNumericus

I think the two key differences is: US protectionism favors not just the domestics, but the existing firms. For example (since this is an auto thread), in the 1970s, the US imposed all sorts of ridiculous requirements on cars - which the Big 3 lobbied for! - saddling car buyers with thousands of dollars worth of useless electronic gadgetry and making their cars less reliable. These gadgets had nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with protecting the existing manufacturers from future competition. The cost of entry became so high that there could never be another American start-up. But it failed to protect the Big 3 from the existing Japanese competition.
(For example: Tata Motors, the family-owned Indian company that'll probably buy Jaguar/Landrover from Ford, is showing a $2500 car in India http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../11/dl1102.xmlhttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Wp6s1bwGh4a-Bghttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...rtkrB6Xye0LNcQ Can you imagine how much more it would have to cost in the US to comply with our protectionist "environmental" rules?) The US did browbeat the Japanese into imposing "voluntary" quotas. As the result, US consumers lost access to cheap Japanese imports (given the quotas, the Japanese shifted to higher-margin cars), but it didn't help the Big 3 and the UAW whiners much.

The second difference is that US companies are saddled with affirmative action decision makers - incompetent women and minorities who make extremely stupid business decisions that destroy their employers despite all that protectionism. For example: in 2000, it was clear that Ford was already in trouble long-term. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Instead of plowing $10bil back into the business, which might possibly have allowed Ford Motors to remain competitive a few years later, they paid a "special dividend" to the folks who will one day hang from lampposts.

So those regulations put into place in the 1970s did not protect the big three from the Japanese invasion, yet have destroyed the possibility of new American start-ups coming into the picture?

I personally would never ever own a Japanese car, and would admonish anyone claiming that their Toyotas are American cars simply because they are made here (Or rather assembled here from parts made overseas). When you buy Jap the profits go to Japan.

LOL, are you onw of those UAW types who "admonish" us to buy Ford Focus - made in Mexico from parts made all over the world except the US? :

Quote:

Originally Posted by francaisetfier

So those regulations put into place in the 1970s did not protect the big three from the Japanese invasion, yet have destroyed the possibility of new American start-ups coming into the picture?

Exactly.

See, if you tried to start a new manufacturing company (not just, say, auto parts) in Euroland, local politicans and bureaucrats won't mind too much, as long as you pay your taxes and comply with all their regulations (some sillier than others). They figure, you reduce unemployment and pay taxes. US politicans, on the other hand, are much more corrupt - like a turd world African or Latrin American country. They are paid whores, beholden to the existing businesses and their lobbyists. In exchanges for bribes (aka political contributions) they sabotage new businesses by enforcing obscure regulations that existing businesses aren't required to follow, or entrapping them in criminal schemes (remember Delorean)

So those regulations put into place in the 1970s did not protect the big three from the Japanese invasion, yet have destroyed the possibility of new American start-ups coming into the picture?

That was really stupid.

The Japanese onslaught didn't happen overnight; it was like the camel poking its head into the tent and gradually taking it over. Also Japan has been a favored US client since 1945 and the US has allowed Japanese manufacturers to get away with things they'd never tolerate from manufacturers of other countries. And of course once they set up assembly plants in the US, there would have been opposition from those states where the plants were.

I don't think the Japs did anything more than sell a superior product at a lower price... but that probably wouldn't have been tolerated from non-Japs.

Indeed. Take away the Cold War rationale, and the USA would probably have moved to protect its auto industry more aggressively. As it was, the USA decided it needed Japan and Western Europe as bulwarks against the Soviet threat. Without access to US markets, Japan wouldn't have achieved its postwar economic miracle.

Location: FLYING DOWN THE INTERSTATE IN MY CHEVY VAN (SEE IT IN MY AVATAR?), WINDOWS DOWN, 80'S HAIR METAL BOOMING ON THE RADIO, AND ME SPENDING ALL MY CASH ON GAS!

Posts: 18,080

Re: Which auto maker will go bankrupt first?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bombadillo

The Japanese onslaught didn't happen overnight; it was like the camel poking its head into the tent and gradually taking it over. Also Japan has been a favored US client since 1945 and the US has allowed Japanese manufacturers to get away with things they'd never tolerate from manufacturers of other countries. And of course once they set up assembly plants in the US, there would have been opposition from those states where the plants were.

A lot if this is the fault of the domestics for trying to out-Japan the Japanese in the kinds of cars that are their specialty and for not spendind money and research on how to make it's core big engines more fuel efficient for the future. Now they are paying dearly for their stupidity.

A lot if this is the fault of the domestics for trying to out-Japan the Japanese in the kinds of cars that are their specialty and for not spendind money and research on how to make it's core big engines more fuel efficient for the future. Now they are paying dearly for their stupidity.

This is also true. I had a book some years ago that compared Nissan with Ford. Whereas Nissan was headed by engineers and had a culture of engineering, Ford was headed by MBAs more interested in financials and making pretty presentations. This is a problem endemic to American industry. And Britain went down this road to perdition a long time ago.

It says something about the US that whereas (until recently at least), a newly-minted financial "engineer" has been able to start at a salary of $100,000-$150,000 (with the sky subsequently the limit), a mechancal or electrical engineer has started at a fraction of this, with relatively poor career prospects. If indeed he or she has been able to obtain employment at all as American industry has become so hollowed-out and so much has been shifted abroad.